Literature DB >> 23646990

Reversed item bias: an integrative model.

Bert Weijters1, Hans Baumgartner, Niels Schillewaert.   

Abstract

In the recent methodological literature, various models have been proposed to account for the phenomenon that reversed items (defined as items for which respondents' scores have to be recoded in order to make the direction of keying consistent across all items) tend to lead to problematic responses. In this article we propose an integrative conceptualization of three important sources of reversed item method bias (acquiescence, careless responding, and confirmation bias) and specify a multisample confirmatory factor analysis model with 2 method factors to empirically test the hypothesized mechanisms, using explicit measures of acquiescence and carelessness and experimentally manipulated versions of a questionnaire that varies 3 item arrangements and the keying direction of the first item measuring the focal construct. We explain the mechanisms, review prior attempts to model reversed item bias, present our new model, and apply it to responses to a 4-item self-esteem scale (N = 306) and the 6-item Revised Life Orientation Test (N = 595). Based on the literature review and the empirical results, we formulate recommendations on how to use reversed items in questionnaires.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23646990     DOI: 10.1037/a0032121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Methods        ISSN: 1082-989X


  26 in total

1.  Source-specific Exposure to Contradictory Nutrition Information: Documenting Prevalence and Effects on Adverse Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes.

Authors:  Chul-Joo Lee; Rebekah H Nagler; Ningxin Wang
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2017-02-02

2.  Further Considerations in Using Items With Diverse Content to Measure Acquiescence.

Authors:  Chester Chun Seng Kam
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 2.821

3.  Mountain or Molehill? A Simulation Study on the Impact of Response Styles.

Authors:  Hansjörg Plieninger
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 2.821

4.  Methods of Detecting Insufficient Effort Responding: Comparisons and Practical Recommendations.

Authors:  Maxwell Hong; Jeffrey T Steedle; Ying Cheng
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 2.821

5.  Contextual Responses to Affirmative and/or Reversed-Worded Items.

Authors:  Ulf Böckenholt
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 2.500

6.  Psychometric properties of the Slovenian version of Internet Disorder Scale-IDS-15.

Authors:  Mark Žmavc; Halley M Pontes; Mark D Griffiths; Špela Selak
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-21       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  Measuring early childhood development with The Early Human Capability Index (eHCI): a reliability and validity study in China.

Authors:  Jin Zhao; Sally Anne Brinkman; Yunting Zhang; Yingquan Song; Chunling Lu; Mary Eming Young; Yue Zhang; Patrick Ip; Wenjie Shan; Fan Jiang
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 2.125

8.  The Development and Validation of the Epistemic Vice Scale.

Authors:  Marco Meyer; Mark Alfano; Boudewijn de Bruin
Journal:  Rev Philos Psychol       Date:  2021-06-25

9.  Modeling Wording Effects Does Not Help in Recovering Uncontaminated Person Scores: A Systematic Evaluation With Random Intercept Item Factor Analysis.

Authors:  María Dolores Nieto; Luis Eduardo Garrido; Agustín Martínez-Molina; Francisco José Abad
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-06-02

10.  Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: let's learn from cows in the rain.

Authors:  Eric van Sonderen; Robbert Sanderman; James C Coyne
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.